Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-20-2019 1:35 AM
156 online now:
Dredge, dwise1, Meddle, PaulK (4 members, 152 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,464 Year: 3,501/19,786 Month: 496/1,087 Week: 86/212 Day: 2/14 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
16171819
20
21Next
Author Topic:   Can science refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 286 of 310 (491569)
12-17-2008 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Stile
12-17-2008 12:31 PM


Re: Reasonable doubt, reasonable doubt, reasonable doubt
No, they are not reasonable doubts.

In your gold ring analogy they are not running all the tests we know about. In fact, they may not be running any tests at all.

And science may not have run any tests for god at all too.

With God, we're running EVERY test we know about, using ANY method we can possibly develop. We continually use any NEW method anyone is capable of thinking up, ALL of these methods come up with nothing.

But this is only for scientific tests. If a man prayed to god and saw and heard god's reply, then that was a "method" and it came up with something. This has happened before, its just has not be verified by science.

That science has failed to "come up" with something does not remove all reasonable doubt that something could still be there.

If you think "not doing anything" is equivalent to "doing everything we can"... you're not understanding me.

I don't think that.

This very nicely shows the difference between "reasonable doubt" and "100% certainty".

I'm not arguing that anything less than 100% certainty is a reasonable doubt.

What rational person would claim there's bacteria on a fork before we even knew what bacteria was? How could they claim such a thing?
At this point, it most certainly is "beyond all reasonable doubt" to say bacteria does not exist.
No one ever said we shouldn't look for bacteria. And we eventually found it.

I don't think it was beyond reasonable doubt that the bacteria didn't exist.

Since you think it was, then you're just turning "beyond all reasonable doubt" into a worthless qualifier like I said before.

The lack of doubts that you considered to be reasonable said absolutely nothing about the actual existence of the bacteria.

What rational person can claim God exists before we even know what God is?
No one ever said we shouldn't be looking for God. However, we still have yet to find Him. Therefore we are still "beyond all reasonable doubt" that God does not exist.

I guess I just don't agree with how you apply the label of "beyond all reasonable doubt".

Uncertain methods and measurements are reasonable doubts to me. You can define your label to not include those, but all your doing is taking value from the label.

Basically, you're just saying that you don't think the doubts are reasonable. So what?

What rational person would claim their imagination is real before showing it to be so?
No one ever said we shouldn't be looking for things in our imagination. How else would we discover new things? However, until we actually find something to indicate that it exists we are still "beyond all reasonable doubt" that things in our imagination do not exist.

From a scientific standpoint, sure. But from a personal and subjective standpoint, no.

A rational person could be convince that their imagination was real and they would have a reasonable doubt that it wasn't.

If the only thing we are left with is a God who is undetectable from non-existence, then that alone shows "beyond a reasonable doubt" that God does not exist.

Your argument is circular.

The man who heard god answer his prayer has detected god. He has a reasonable doubt that god does not exist.

But this is not scientific evidence. You're arguing that because we don't have scientific evidence, then we have absolutely no evidence, so then there's no room for reasonable doubt. But that's because you disqualify the reasonable doubts a priori:

quote:
The point with God is that there are no findings in the first place.

It's that we have NOTHING from God.


Of course we have. Just the other day I wrote my mom a Christmas card that says "I love you" on it. This is real evidence that I love my Mom. It may be wrong, it may not be very good evidence, but it certainly is real evidence.

But there is no scientific evidence that love even exists in the first place. Now you have lowered your standard of evidence to include this as "real" evidence but you won't do the same for evidence of god. See how your argument becomes circular?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Stile, posted 12-17-2008 12:31 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Stile, posted 12-17-2008 2:09 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3392
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 287 of 310 (491572)
12-17-2008 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by onifre
12-17-2008 1:03 PM


Re: Reasonable thinking is not the same as reasonable doubt
onifre writes:

But there in lies the rub. Reasonable doubt by whos standards...?

I was using the standards of a democratic court system. Since that's where I believe the term is derived from.

You're getting into semantics, and I do not care to follow such a discussion (I find semantics incredibly boring). I fully concede to you that if we take "reasonable" to be anyone in the coloquial sense then you are correct.

However, I am taking "reasonable doubt" to mean what it means in a court system. That is, bascially, "using what we're have available to us to show that what we say is true".

That is the only argument I am interested in, one where we can show our stance to be true. If we use your definition of "reasonable", this restriction is not necessarily included. I am uninterested in what people think yet cannot show. Well... about the existence of God, anyway :)

onifre writes:

Stile writes:

They understand that their faith is not rational or reasonable in the sense that it can be shown to be a part of reality.

I think people like Catholic Sci or Bluejay would disagree with the not rational or reasonable part

I'm sure they would, seems like a very sweeping statment to just spit out in the general sense. I should make sure I qualify it so that people understand what I'm trying to say:

They understand that their faith is not rational or reasonable in the sense that it can be shown to be a part of reality.

Oh yeah, I did. Waste time much? :)

onifre writes:

Stile writes:

It does not matter who personally accepts an argument for "reasonable doubt". The point is to show, within the confines of reality, that what you say is actually true.

I will point you to Bluejays post #282 for the reply to this.

As I said to Bluejay, by "confines of reality" I mean that which we have available to us, and that which we know.

It may certainly well be incorrect. But we'll never know beyond all reasonable doubt unless we can show something.

onifre writes:

This will sound corney but, what about the people that look within themselves and claim to find God? Is that not proof that God exists for them? Is objectivity the only correct method for reasoning? I don't think I would like to live in a world where that was the case. I am an atheist, but I don't feel that my method of determining that is the only proper method. For all we know God is ONLY experienced subjectively and we are the one's who are wrong. Maybe both atheists AND religion is wrong. Maybe it's somewhere in the middle, like a combo of both, like Einstiens concept of God. I don't know. But, I don't think we should be closed minded to ONLY the objective.

Although you mentioned this may be corney, I think this is a very important point to clarify. It's along the same lines as CS talking about me loving my mom.

I look inside myself and claim that I have love.
I am claiming that love is an attribute of myself.
I am claiming that without me, there is no "my love".
I am claiming that without intelligent beings, there is no love.
I can show love exists because I can show I exist, and I can do actions that show I am engaging in a loving manner.
I can disprove that my love exists because I can do actions that would show that I am not engaging in a loving manner.

God, even an internal "within myself" God, is not the same thing.
I've yet to hear anyone claim that God is an attribute of intelligent beings.
I've yet to hear anyone claim that without intelligent beings, there is no God.
We cannot show or disprove that God exists by engaging in a "Godly" or "Un-Godly" manner. That is, whatever manner we may apply the term "Godly" to, can also be duplicated by those who do not claim it is "Godly".

The point is that when claiming something like love, people are claiming it internally as an internal attribute. However, when claiming something like God, people are claiming it internally as an external attribute.

onifre writes:

Stile writes:

It doesn't matter if this is a valid argument to someone from a tribe in the middle of the rainforest.
It doesn't matter if this is a valid argument to onifre.
What matters is that this is a valid argument. That's all, period.

To you...?

To any system (like a democratic court) that is interested in understanding what is true.
The only way people have ever been able to understand something is true with as little doubt as is possible is by showing it to be so within reality.

Therefore, this makes "showing something" the highest (yet known) court in the land.

Yes, such a system is subjective. It is only significant to those who find understanding truth to be valuable.

...it [is] reasonable to doubt by my standards.

But it is proven "beyond all reasonable doubt" to anyone who finds understanding truth to be valuable, and therefore will only accept the highest court in the land (showing).

I've been assuming the "to anyone who finds understanding truth to be valuable" part as inherent in the phrase "reasonable doubt". Hopefully that will no longer cause any confusion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by onifre, posted 12-17-2008 1:03 PM onifre has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3392
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 288 of 310 (491574)
12-17-2008 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by New Cat's Eye
12-17-2008 1:25 PM


Re: Reasonable doubt, reasonable doubt, reasonable doubt
Catholic Scientist writes:

And science may not have run any tests for god at all too.

Agreed. But people certainly have ran every possible test they can think of or know about. And nothing. That's reasonable doubt.

Why would it be reasonable to worry something may be detected by a test we aren't capable of thinking about?

Reasonable doubt. Not 100% certainty.

But this is only for scientific tests. If a man prayed to god and saw and heard god's reply, then that was a "method" and it came up with something. This has happened before, its just has not be verified by science.

Yes, the claim certainly has happened. Multiple times. Of course, there are many, many reasons to doubt these claims.

Add in the fact that on a world-wide scale, no group of those who claim to talk with God live in a different manner from those who do not claim to talk with God.
God must not be telling them anything very interesting or new. Perhaps the God they're talking to is only telling them things they already know because they're talking to themselves since God doesn't exist.

Reasonable doubt. Not 100% certainty.

This does not mean there are "no doubts" about the conclusion.
This simply means that we are unable to SHOW that there are any REASONABLE (reliable... valid) doubts about the conclusion.

I don't think it was beyond reasonable doubt that the bacteria didn't exist.

Then what was the reasonable doubt?
Why should people have rationally thought bacteria could exist before they had any indication that bacteria may exist?

Remember... when they found indication, they did a test. And that test came out positive. And we found that bacteria did exist.

The lack of doubts that you considered to be reasonable said absolutely nothing about the actual existence of the bacteria.

That's exactly why it would be okay. Once a reasonable doubt is raised (one we can show to be true), then we need to change our minds and do a test. Once we find the result of the test, we can go back to our original "non-existence beyond reasonable doubt" conclusion or perhaps we actually showed that it does exist.

I guess I just don't agree with how you apply the label of "beyond all reasonable doubt".

Uncertain methods and measurements are reasonable doubts to me. You can define your label to not include those, but all your doing is taking value from the label.

Basically, you're just saying that you don't think the doubts are reasonable. So what?

When I say "reasonable doubt" I am not saying my own personal reasoning. It is said in the sense of searching for truth. And the best (and so far only) reliable way we know of to acknowledge truth is by showing it to be a part of reality.

If one does not want to search for truth, or if one does not accept the best (and so far only) method available and does not offer a better method... how can you possibly say the doubts are "reasonable"?

I am assuming that the following are uncontestable by intelligent, rational people:

-truth is determinable and valuable
-the best (and only) method we have available to know that a claim is truly a part of reality is to show that is. (The best method within this subset is the scientific method, but there is no such restriction to "only the scientific method").

That's what I mean by "reasonable doubt". Using anything possibly at the disposable of humankind to SHOW what is a part of reality. Anything else is unreliable and certainly contains "reasonable doubt".

The man who heard god answer his prayer has detected god. He has a reasonable doubt that god does not exist.

I would say that an intelligent, rational man who accepts the above statements for SHOWING things to be true only has reasonable doubt that he may be having a delusion. Delusion certainly have been shown to exist. Delusions of God answering prayers have been shown to exist. God has not been shown to exist yet. The first piece of evidence to begin "reasonable doubt" as to God's non-existence must necessarily be SHOWN in reality. If we could be mistaken about the evidence, then it does not contain "reasonable doubt" with the knowledge we have of the human mind and how we make mistakes and errors.

But there is no scientific evidence that love even exists in the first place. Now you have lowered your standard of evidence to include this as "real" evidence but you won't do the same for evidence of god.

I have not lowered the standard at all. I've never demanded "scientific evidence", just the ability to SHOW that it is a part of reality. The scientific method is simply the best way we know of to SHOW things. It is certainly not the only way.

I claim to have love. I certainly am real and am capable of love. I can show these things.
If someone claims to be God, I'd want to make sure they can show me they exist. I'd want to make sure they can show me they are not "human" or any other kind of being we already know exist. I'd want to make sure they are capable of the sorts of things a God should be capable of.

That most certainly would be able to put "reasonable doubt" on the non-existence of God. Still hasn't happened yet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-17-2008 1:25 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-17-2008 2:47 PM Stile has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 289 of 310 (491575)
12-17-2008 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Stile
12-17-2008 2:09 PM


Re: Reasonable doubt, reasonable doubt, reasonable doubt
But people certainly have ran every possible test they can think of or know about. And nothing.

No.....I think you're equivocating here.

The man who heard god's reply to his prayer ran a test and he got something.

But this is only for scientific tests. If a man prayed to god and saw and heard god's reply, then that was a "method" and it came up with something. This has happened before, its just has not be verified by science.

Yes, the claim certainly has happened. Multiple times. Of course, there are many, many reasons to doubt these claims.

Add in the fact that on a world-wide scale, no group of those who claim to talk with God live in a different manner from those who do not claim to talk with God.
God must not be telling them anything very interesting or new. Perhaps the God they're talking to is only telling them things they already know because they're talking to themselves since God doesn't exist.

Reasonable doubt. Not 100% certainty.

Wait, this is a seperate claim.

I agree that there are reasonable doubts to the existence of god.

What I don't agree with is that non-existence of god is beyond reasonable doubt, or rather, there are reasonable doubts to the non-existence of god.

I don't think it was beyond reasonable doubt that the bacteria didn't exist.

Then what was the reasonable doubt?

That your method of detecting the bacteria was inadequate.

I guess I just don't agree with how you apply the label of "beyond all reasonable doubt".

Uncertain methods and measurements are reasonable doubts to me. You can define your label to not include those, but all your doing is taking value from the label.

Basically, you're just saying that you don't think the doubts are reasonable. So what?

When I say "reasonable doubt" I am not saying my own personal reasoning. It is said in the sense of searching for truth. And the best (and so far only) reliable way we know of to acknowledge truth is by showing it to be a part of reality.

If one does not want to search for truth, or if one does not accept the best (and so far only) method available and does not offer a better method... how can you possibly say the doubts are "reasonable"?

The "unreliable" ways of acknowledging truth can yield doubts that are reasonable.

That's what I mean by "reasonable doubt". Using anything possibly at the disposable of humankind to SHOW what is a part of reality. Anything else is unreliable and certainly contains "reasonable doubt".

That millions of people are convinced of god's existence is reasonable enough to doubt god's non-existence, at least as much as your reasons for doubting that love doesn't exist.

The man who heard god answer his prayer has detected god. He has a reasonable doubt that god does not exist.

I would say that an intelligent, rational man who accepts the above statements for SHOWING things to be true only has reasonable doubt that he may be having a delusion.

And you may be having a delusion that you love your mom.

But the point is not that the man has shown god's existence to be true, its that he's casted a reasonable doubt on god's non-existence.

God has not been shown to exist yet. The first piece of evidence to begin "reasonable doubt" as to God's non-existence must necessarily be SHOWN in reality. If we could be mistaken about the evidence, then it does not contain "reasonable doubt" with the knowledge we have of the human mind and how we make mistakes and errors.

I don't agree with your criteria for what is reasonable.

I have not lowered the standard at all. I've never demanded "scientific evidence", just the ability to SHOW that it is a part of reality.

We can't show that love exists.

I claim to have love. I certainly am real and am capable of love. I can show these things.

No, you can't.

You're not applying the same criteria, for "reasonable", towards love that you are towards god.


ABE:

Do you also think that we can claim, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there is no other life in the Universe?

We don't have the means to nor have we detected any yet so following your logic I'd have to say that you do.

I, otoh, think there are reasonable doubts to the non-existence of other life in the Universe and that our inability to detect them has not removed all doubt to their non-existence.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Stile, posted 12-17-2008 2:09 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Stile, posted 12-17-2008 3:28 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3392
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 290 of 310 (491578)
12-17-2008 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by New Cat's Eye
12-17-2008 2:47 PM


Re: Reasonable doubt, reasonable doubt, reasonable doubt
Catholic Scientist writes:

Stile writes:

But people certainly have ran every possible test they can think of or know about. And nothing.

No.....I think you're equivocating here.

The man who heard god's reply to his prayer ran a test and he got something.

He certainly did get "something". But he is unable to tell if his "something" is from where he thinks it is from (God) or from something else (possibly himself). Therefore, since he is unable to know if this doubt is valid, this doubt is unreasonable.

God not existing is still shown beyond all reasonable doubt.

Catholic Scientist writes:

What I don't agree with is that non-existence of god is beyond reasonable doubt, or, there are also reasonable doubts to the non-existence of god.

In order to have a reasonable doubt about the non-existence of God, we must be able to show that this doubt is a valid part of reality. Otherwise, the doubt is not reasonable (it may be mistaken... how could we know?).

People hearing things in their heads and claiming it is from God is not a valid part of reality. There are a multitude of answers for such things. We cannot tell the difference. It is not reasonable to call this a doubt.

People getting feelings and attributing them to God is not a valid part of reality. There are a multitude of answers for such things. We cannot tell the difference. It is not reasonable to call this a doubt.

Catholic Scientist writes:

The "unreliable" ways of acknowledging truth can yield doubts that are reasonable.

I'm not sure what you're saying by this.

If you're saying "The unreliable ways of acknowledgeing truth are reasonable doubts themselves", then you are wrong. The fact that it is unreliable (we can't tell if it's true or not) is exactly what makes it not reasonable to call this a doubt.

If you're saying "The unreliable ways of acknowledging truth can lead to reliable ways of acknowledging truth". Then I agree with you. However, until we actually do find those reliable ways that are possibly-being-led-to, we are left with God's non-existence being shown beyond all reasonable doubt.

That millions of people are convinced of god's existence is reasonable enough to doubt god's non-existence, at least as much as your reasons for doubting that love doesn't exist.

No. Millions of people being convinced of something does not make it a valid part of reality. There are a multitude of answers for such things. We cannot tell the difference. It is not reasonable to call this a doubt.

I don't say my love exists because millions of people are convinced their love exists. I say my love exists because I can show I exist, I can show that I have love, and it's possible to disprove that what I say is love is actually love (if I cheat on my wife, I do not love her). Do this with God's existence and I'll certainly concede.

And you may be having a delusion that you love your mom.

Why do people think love is so hard to show? It's really easy.

Love
-strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties

I can show I exist. (I'll take it you'll take this for granted?)
I can show my mom exists. (I'll take it you'll take this for granted?)
I can show my mom and I have kinship or personal ties. -she raised me
I can show I have strong affection for my mom. -I take time to care for and interact with my mom while I do not take time to ridicule or be negative towards her

Such things show that I love my mom. Your refusal to accept it doesn't change the facts.
Your insistance on Love being some sort of non-defineable, poetry-defying entity does not make it so. Such things certainly are extreme forms of Love, but it is not required to show the extreme possibilities of something when we're simply trying to show that it exists at all. That would be like God actually leaving valid evidence of himself (the words "From God With Love" being found intrinsically etched into the hearts of all humans, say) yet we still say He does not exist beyond all reasonable doubt because there is no world peace. It's ridiculous.

I have easily shown you that Love exists beyond all reasonable doubt. I'm still waiting for anything from you about God.

I don't agree with your criteria for what is reasonable.

Beyond all reasonable doubt: Beyond any doubt that we know is truly an actual part of reality. That is, being able to show that it is true. In other words... if we are unable to know if the doubt is a part of reality or not (if we are unable to show that the doubt really exists in reality) how can we possibly say that the doubt is reasonable?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-17-2008 2:47 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-17-2008 4:17 PM Stile has responded
 Message 292 by ICANT, posted 12-17-2008 10:40 PM Stile has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 291 of 310 (491580)
12-17-2008 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Stile
12-17-2008 3:28 PM


Re: Reasonable doubt, reasonable doubt, reasonable doubt
He certainly did get "something". But he is unable to tell if his "something" is from where he thinks it is from (God) or from something else (possibly himself). Therefore, since he is unable to know if this doubt is valid, this doubt is unreasonable.

I just don't agree with your definition of "reasonable".

In order to have a reasonable doubt about the non-existence of God, we must be able to show that this doubt is a valid part of reality. Otherwise, the doubt is not reasonable (it may be mistaken... how could we know?).

Yeah... without being able to agree on the terms, this discussion is going to go nowhere.

The ability to be shown to be a valid part of reality is not neccessarily a requirement for a doubt to be reasonable, imho.

Catholic Scientist writes:

The "unreliable" ways of acknowledging truth can yield doubts that are reasonable.

I'm not sure what you're saying by this.

I was saying that the ways of acknowledgeing truth that are unreliable (i.e. not validated, or subjective, etc.), can still give us doubts that are reasonable. You're arguing that valid objective doubts are the only reasonable ones. I think we're at an impasse.

And I still think your argument is circular. It boils down to: its not a valid part of reality until it is validated as reality. I think that valid parts of reality are independent of our varification and that our lack of verification does not remove all reasonable doubt.

Basically, you're defining "reasonable" as verified by science and then saying that everything that isn't verified by science is not reasonable.

If you're saying "The unreliable ways of acknowledging truth can lead to reliable ways of acknowledging truth". Then I agree with you. However, until we actually do find those reliable ways that are possibly-being-led-to, we are left with God's non-existence being shown beyond all reasonable doubt.

I also don't agree with this line of thinking; That discoveries that we haven't made yet are non-existent beyond a reasonable doubt until we do discover them.

I think it makes the qualification "beyond a reasonable doubt" near worthless.

That millions of people are convinced of god's existence is reasonable enough to doubt god's non-existence, at least as much as your reasons for doubting that love doesn't exist.

No. Millions of people being convinced of something does not make it a valid part of reality. There are a multitude of answers for such things. We cannot tell the difference. It is not reasonable to call this a doubt.

I don't think it validates it as a part of reality but I still find it reasonable.

Why do people think love is so hard to show? It's really easy.

Because love isn't what you think it is.

Love
-strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties

There's more to love than just strong affection.

Your insistance on Love being some sort of non-defineable, poetry-defying entity does not make it so.

Of course not, and neither does your dictionary define a word.

I have easily shown you that Love exists beyond all reasonable doubt.

No, you've shown that affection exists, not love.

So now we can't agree what love is, in addition to what is reasonable.

Like I said, an impasse.

I'll let you have the last word (maybe :D).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Stile, posted 12-17-2008 3:28 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Stile, posted 12-18-2008 8:51 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 292 of 310 (491592)
12-17-2008 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Stile
12-17-2008 3:28 PM


Re: Reasonable doubt,
Hi Stile,

Stile writes:

I can show I exist. (I'll take it you'll take this for granted?)

I don't take anything for granted.

Somebody proposed that we are brains in a jar and everything we think is real is being fed into our brains as an experiment by a higher intelligent group of beings than we are.

I can't prove that is not the case.

But we are carrying on a conversation anyway. In Message 288 you made the following statement.

Stile writes:

Add in the fact that on a world-wide scale, no group of those who claim to talk with God live in a different manner from those who do not claim to talk with God.
God must not be telling them anything very interesting or new. Perhaps the God they're talking to is only telling them things they already know because they're talking to themselves since God doesn't exist.

That is a very big assertion, "no group of those who claim to talk with God live in a different manner from those who do not claim to talk with God".

You care to give some data to back up that assertion?

I am just as sure my God exists as I am that I exist.
One month before my tenth birthday I met Jesus and received Him as my personal savior. I ask for eternal life and received it because He said He would give it to me if I asked.

When I was 14 I was sitting in the rec room at school drinking a coke when a young lady came in and asked if the seat next to me was taken. It was empty so she sit down. I got her a coke and pack of crackers and she explained to me that she was making her boyfriend mad. He was looking on from the ag building. In this ten minute encounter God impressed upon me that this lady was to be my wife.
We were married after graduation on June 3, 1957. She is sitting in the family room as I am typing this message. There is no other woman on the face of the earth that would have put up with me in my younger years. You want me to believe that was an accident.

I am now 69 years old and I have never missed a meal that I did not choose to do so. I have never needed anything that I did not have or was not able to obtain. I believe I have those things because God provided them as He said He would do in His Word.

I retired in December 2003 and came back to the states from Grand Cayman. I bought a house and had to have a sizable mortgage on it. I had dedicated my life to God and did not really know how I would pay for it as my retirement would not be enough.

In September of 04 a hurricane hit Grand Cayman and my old boss I had worked for while there ask me to come back and repair/replace the damaged cabinets that I had put in while employed there.

Before I went I knew what I would receive for the year it would take and that would not be near enough to pay off my mortgage after expenses.

I made a bargain with God. I said Lord if I can make enough money to pay off my mortgage so my wife will have a roof over her head if something happens to me, I will go anywhere you want me to go. Well to make a long story short the second day I was on the Island a gentleman heard I was on island and called and asked me to drop by.
I did he gave me a job that was totally unexpected that was completed before my old boss was even halfway ready for me to do his work. That job paid off my mortgage. (I am not talking chump change either)

When the job was completed I came back to the states and within a couple of months, and no effort on my part a struggling church called and asked me to come and preach for them.
That is where I am at today.

You want to tell me all that is just an accident.

If you drop by for a properly cooked steak one day and have a couple of months to spend I will tell you the rest of the story as these are just the highlights.

You are welcome to all the doubts you want to have just don't tell me I should have doubts.

Now you may never believe in God here on earth.

You made a statement in an earlier post that we would never know beyond reasonable doubt.

If God exists you will know for a certainty that He does.

I do know one thing science has not prove beyond a reasonable doubt must less all reasonable doubt that God does not exist to me. If it is going to it better hurry I am running out of time.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Stile, posted 12-17-2008 3:28 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Stile, posted 12-18-2008 9:22 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3392
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 293 of 310 (491604)
12-18-2008 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by New Cat's Eye
12-17-2008 4:17 PM


Perhaps an impasse
Catholic Scientist writes:

You're arguing that valid objective doubts are the only reasonable ones. I think we're at an impasse.

We may be at an impasse, yes.

Basically, you're defining "reasonable" as verified by science and then saying that everything that isn't verified by science is not reasonable.

Essentially the same thing, but I'd word it like this:

I'd defining "reasonable" in the same way a democratic court system does. That is, you need to be able to show that it is true. And I am certainly saying that those things we cannot show to be true are therefore unreasonable, yes, that's inherent in the definition.

This is not circular. This is simply a definition along with it's opposite. It's a totality. Totalities are not circular.

It boils down to: its not a valid part of reality until it is validated as reality. I think that valid parts of reality are independent of our varification and that our lack of verification does not remove all reasonable doubt.

I agree to this. I think this is the difference between "beyond all reasonable doubt" and "100% certainty".

The fact that valid parts of reality can be independent of our verification and that we cannot tell the difference between these and the infinite number of purely imaginary things that are equally independent of our verification leads us into requiring two different categories.

I am labelling "the things we know are real" as "beyond all reasonable doubt".

I am labelling "the things we are not sure if they are real or not because we are (currently?) unable to tell the difference" as "unreasonable doubt".

I am labelling these things in the same way a democratic court system does. The same way any system focused on using our best-known resources to identify "true in reality" would do.

Catholic Scientist writes:

Stile writes:

Why do people think love is so hard to show? It's really easy.

Because love isn't what you think it is.

Ah... so you attempted a trick question :)

If you are going to use the term "love" in an undefineable sense, then I am forced to agree with you. How could anyone possibly *know* that they "love" at all, if we are unable to even define "love"?

You'll have to define what you mean by "love" before I can attempt to tell you if I have it or not. If you don't mean the general dictionary sense of the word then I do not understand what you're trying to talk about and you'll have to define it yourself.

If it's undefineable, then we're also unable to *know* if we 'measure up' to it or not. That is obvious.

And don't worry about "last words", I'm enjoying this conversation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-17-2008 4:17 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-18-2008 10:53 AM Stile has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3392
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 294 of 310 (491605)
12-18-2008 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by ICANT
12-17-2008 10:40 PM


Faith is beyond reasonable doubt
ICANT writes:

Stile writes:

I can show I exist. (I'll take it you'll take this for granted?)

Somebody proposed that we are brains in a jar and everything we think is real is being fed into our brains as an experiment by a higher intelligent group of beings than we are.

But, if we exist as brains in jars... why are you saying you don't know if we exist or not?

I didn't say I can show the exact specifics as to how I exist. I said I can show I exist. Real people in real bodies or brains is jars doesn't matter. Either way, I still exist.

That is a very big assertion, "no group of those who claim to talk with God live in a different manner from those who do not claim to talk with God".

You care to give some data to back up that assertion?

I cannot. That's the whole point. There is no data showing any group of those who claim to talk with God live in a different manner from those who do not claim to talk with God.

I should probably add some context though.

I'm not talking about "a different manner" as in they have a different culture. I'm talking about "a different manner" in which people who do not claim to talk with God are unable to live.

That is, those who talk with God do not have better lives.
Those who talk with God are not happier.
Those who talk with God are not more depressed.
Those who talk with God are not smarter.
Those who talk with God are not dumber.
Those who talk with God are hit by natural disasters as much as those who do not talk with God.
Those who talk with God do not live longer or shorter than those who do not talk with God.

There is no difference between the average "talking with God" person and the average "not talking with God" person.

I'm afraid that if you're going to claim that there is a difference, you'll have to be the one who shows it to be so. Because there is no data for me to use since I am not claiming an ability, I'm claiming the absence of any special abilities.

There is no other woman on the face of the earth that would have put up with me in my younger years. You want me to believe that was an accident.

No. I never mentioned any accidents. I only want you to understand that the idea of your wife being brought to you by God is refuted beyond all reasonable doubt.

Maybe your wife is a girl who likes a challenge.
Maybe your wife is a strong individual.
Maybe your wife loves you.

Maybe it was God who brought your wife to you. I'm not saying it wasn't. I'm saying we can't tell, and therefore the suggestion is refuted beyond all reasonable doubt.

There are plenty of mundane reasons for your wife to stay with you.
There are plenty of mundane marriages that have "more possibly-strenuous" relationships then the one you have and they also last longer.

[All whole bunch of personal life stories that ICANT says God granted him]

You want to tell me all that is just an accident.

No, I want to tell you that we are unable to show a difference between these things being caused by God and these things being caused by mundane forces.

I want to tell you that there are plenty of people with more convincing and more seemingly-impossible stories than yours that do not attribute them to God because they have perfectly fine mundane explanations (like all of your stories).

I want to tell you that because we can't tell if it's God or not, then the God hypothesis is refuted "beyond all reasonable doubt". This does not mean "100% certainty", it simply means "as far as we know".

You are welcome to all the doubts you want to have just don't tell me I should have doubts.

I'm not telling you that you should have doubts.

I'm telling you that the God hypothesis is refuted beyond all reasonable doubt. I'm not telling you that you need to accept this, you can go and accept whatever it that makes you happy.

However, if you're going to say you follow truth.
If you're going to say that truth is the highest priority.
If you're going to say that you'll use the best methods known to us to discover truth.
If you're going to say that you'll search for this truth honestly,

Then you'll have to agree that the God hypothesis is refuted beyond all reasonable doubt. If you do not, then you're lying when you say the above pre-requisites.

If you have faith that God exists, it is trivially obvious that "faith" is "beyond reasonable doubt".

You made a statement in an earlier post that we would never know beyond reasonable doubt.

If God exists you will know for a certainty that He does.

ICANT... don't take things out of context now. I would never say such a thing. It likely was a part of an "if... then..." statement, or perhaps you are just making this up entirely.

And you are correct, if God does exist then I will know for a certainty that He does. I don't even require certainty though, I just require any amount of doubt that we can show is a part of reality.

Finding "FROM GOD WITH LOVE" engraved on the hearts of all people does not show that God exists. But it certainly provides reasonable doubt.

Take jumping off a bridge.
Reasonable Doubt: Anything that we can show to be attributed to jumping off bridges. Example: I may break a leg. People have been known to break legs when jumping or falling off bridges.
Unreasonable Doubt: Everything else. Example: I may fly. People have never been known to fly unaided.

Take God's existence.
Reasonable Doubt: Anything that we can show to be attributed to God (we do not have a mundane explanation for it). Example: Finding "FROM GOD WITH LOVE" engraved on all hearts of humans.
Unreasonable Doubt: Everything else. Example: I have faith that God exists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by ICANT, posted 12-17-2008 10:40 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by NosyNed, posted 12-18-2008 9:32 AM Stile has responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8837
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 295 of 310 (491606)
12-18-2008 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Stile
12-18-2008 9:22 AM


Happy, happy, happy
Those who talk with God are not happier.

I believe this has been shown to be incorrect.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Stile, posted 12-18-2008 9:22 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by kjsimons, posted 12-18-2008 9:37 AM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 297 by Stile, posted 12-18-2008 9:40 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 665
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003


Message 296 of 310 (491607)
12-18-2008 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by NosyNed
12-18-2008 9:32 AM


Re: Happy, happy, happy
Well yes, and it's also been shown that ignorant/less informed people are also happier. Coincidence, I don't think so.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by NosyNed, posted 12-18-2008 9:32 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Agobot, posted 12-18-2008 3:29 PM kjsimons has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3392
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 297 of 310 (491608)
12-18-2008 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by NosyNed
12-18-2008 9:32 AM


Clarifying context
NosyNed writes:

Stile writes:

Those who talk with God are not happier.

I believe this has been shown to be incorrect.

I think you are missing the context of what I'm trying to say. But that's probably because I didn't clarify enough :)

I agree that talking to God can make individual people happier. That is, a sad person can become happier from talking to God.

The context I'm getting at is that we get the same result if a sad person talks to a therapist.

Now, certain things work better for certain people.
I agree that some people may need to "talk to God" to feel happy. That is, talking to a therapist may not allow some people to be happier, or as happy, as talking to God allows them to feel.

But again, this isn't what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that there is no one person (or group of people) who "talk to God" and are happier than one other certain person (or group of people) that get their happiness from strictly mundane sources.

I am not denying the power of "talking with God".

I am denying that the power of "talking with God" is somehow more powerful then the power of "a strictly mundane method" for achieving that same power.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by NosyNed, posted 12-18-2008 9:32 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 298 of 310 (491611)
12-18-2008 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Stile
12-18-2008 8:51 AM


Re: Perhaps an impasse
I'd defining "reasonable" in the same way a democratic court system does. That is, you need to be able to show that it is true.

Then you're misapplying reasonable doubt and wrongly defining what it means to be shown to be true.

In a court case, you have to provide reasonable doubt of a person’s guilt. You do not have to show their innocence.

If the claim is that god exists, then I agree that there is reasonable doubt to this claim.

If the claim is that god does not exist, then I also agree that there is reasonable doubt to this claim.

The “guilt” in our case should be god existing. A court doesn’t require that a person’s innocence be shown beyond a reasonable doubt; you have to show a reasonable doubt to their guilt. In this case you are attempting to say that innocence has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and I think that is a misapplication of where the reasonable doubt should be. You’re saying that doubt has been removed from a negative claim instead of a positive one.

Also, how a court allows things to be shown to be true is different from how science does it. In court, a personal testimony can be the evidence of a reasonable doubt to someone’s guilt. That doesn’t fly in science.

You’re essentially defining “shown to be true” as “verified by science”, but this isn’t what a court system requires for things to be shown to be true.

If this were a court system, then a person’s testimony of god’s existence would be a reasonable doubt that god does not exist.

And I am certainly saying that those things we cannot show to be true are therefore unreasonable, yes, that's inherent in the definition.
This is not circular. This is simply a definition along with it's opposite. It's a totality. Totalities are not circular.

Your argument, not this definition, is circular. Your argument goes like this:

A doubt is reasonable when it is verified by science.
God’s existence has not been verified by science.
There are no doubts to god’s non-existence that have been verified by science.
Therefore, there is no reasonable doubt that god does not exist.

You’re begging the question by defining reasonable as verified by science and then saying that it isn’t reasonable because it hasn’t been verified by science.


Ah... so you attempted a trick question :)
If you are going to use the term "love" in an undefineable sense, then I am forced to agree with you. How could anyone possibly *know* that they "love" at all, if we are unable to even define "love"?

Indeed. And funny enough, even though people can’t define love, when they are in love they just know it. ;)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Stile, posted 12-18-2008 8:51 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Stile, posted 12-18-2008 11:41 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3392
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 299 of 310 (491614)
12-18-2008 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by New Cat's Eye
12-18-2008 10:53 AM


Only I get to say what my argument is
Catholic Scientist writes:

Then you're misapplying reasonable doubt and wrongly defining what it means to be shown to be true.

In a court case, you have to provide reasonable doubt of a person’s guilt. You do not have to show their innocence.

No, I'm not taking "the term reasonable doubt as well as what it is generally applied to".

I am simply taking "the term reasonable doubt" and I am applying it to God's existence.

Also, how a court allows things to be shown to be true is different from how science does it. In court, a personal testimony can be the evidence of a reasonable doubt to someone’s guilt. That doesn’t fly in science.

Again, I am not, nor have I ever said I'm limiting "showing things to be true" to "the scientific method". In fact, I've explicitly said this a few times now.

All you have to do is be able to show that it is a part of reality.

Personal testimony is sometimes a good-enough way to show that something is a part of reality. The same as in a court system.

There is no court system I've ever heard of that takes any and all personal testimony.
Personal testimony is only accepted in court if you can show that it is a part of reality, or if it's obvious that it has been shown to be a part of reality before.

Personal testimony acceptable in a court system: "I have a cat".
Personal testimony unacceptable in a court system: "I have a cat with natural wings that flies on it's own unaided".

One is accepted because it has been shown to be true in reality before (people have cats).
One is rejected because it has never been shown to be true in reality before (people don't have cats with natural wings that fly on their own unaided).
It is not said to be "false", it is just said to be "beyond all reasonable doubt" until such time that this person making the claim can come in and show their cat with natural wings that flies on it's own unaided.

I've never said I require the scientific method. I've only said that I require things to be shown to be true in reality.

Your argument, not this definition, is circular. Your argument goes like this:

A doubt is reasonable when it is verified by science.
God’s existence has not been verified by science.
There are no doubts to god’s non-existence that have been verified by science.
Therefore, there is no reasonable doubt that god does not exist.

You’re begging the question by defining reasonable as verified by science and then saying that it isn’t reasonable because it hasn’t been verified by science.

The nice thing about my argument is that I get to define it. Not you.
You may "think" that is my argument (and you'd be wrong). But you cannot say that this "is" my argument.
Only I get to say what my argument "is". And this is my argument:

Definition - We "know" something when we are able to show it to be true in reality.
Definition - A doubt is "reasonable" when we can know it to be true in reality.
Current Fact - There is nothing that can only be attributed to God that we know of in reality.
Clarification - That is, we may attribute certain things to God, but there is always an equally acceptable mundane answer as well.
Clarification - That is, there is no way for us to (currently) know if something should be attributed to God or not.
Conclusion - Therefore, there is no reasonable doubt that God does not exist.

If I define "reasonable doubt" to be "doubt that can be shown to be true in reality".
Then this makes "unreasonable doubt" to be "doubt that cannot be shown to be true in reality".
Which makes a lot of sense. If we are unable to verify if the doubt is actually worth worrying about, why would we ever call it "reasonable"?

To remove the validity of this argument you can do the following things:
1. Disagree with the definitions - if anyone does this, they are not using our best available method to honestly search for truth in reality. This makes them lazy, devious, or maybe just not particularly interested in finding the truth.
2. Overturn the current fact - if anyone is ever able to know something in reality that can only be attributed to God, then they will have found a reasonable doubt and the conclusion will no longer be valid.

It is important to point out that for every single thing that we know to exist there is always at least one attribute that is unique to that thing. If a thing was not unique, we'ed use the same word/phrase to describe it as one that we already know about. Therefore, in order to identify a new "thing" in existence, we must be able to identify what can only be attributed to that thing. Otherwise, it may just be some of the things we already know exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-18-2008 10:53 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Agobot, posted 12-18-2008 3:55 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 772 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 300 of 310 (491616)
12-18-2008 11:45 AM


Reasonable Doubt?
Despite Stile’s distaste for semantics, I think the discussion has gotten a little hung up on the issue of "reasonable doubt" and how this applies to the question at hand. I think it has been agreed by most that "reasonable doubt" is essentially subjective: what counts as reasonable doubt to one group may not be reasonable doubt for another, more educated group or for an individual with a different understanding of "reasonable."

What follows is that, if we all agree that an idea is "refuted beyond all reasonable doubt" (within our present state of knowledge), but the decision can later be reversed in light of new evidence, we have all become a bunch of AlphaOmegakids.

I will grant that a lack of evidence renders the “God hypothesis” essentially useless in terms of scientific inquiry. So, if we take the theistic viewpoint as a scientific hypothesis, I agree with Stile that it is not a viable, valid scientific idea.

However, I disagree that the concept of God itself has been refuted beyond all reasonable doubt. On that, I stand with Catholic Scientist: any argument that God does not exist based on what we don't see in the world is hardly more than an assumption.

My argument can be summed up as follows:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But, absence of evidence is evidence of uselessness.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Straggler, posted 12-19-2008 9:36 AM Blue Jay has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
16171819
20
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019